User talk:CyberAnth/Talk Archive Jan. 2007

Federal funds

No, it does not. For more information, this question as well as a few others are answered on the Fundraising FAQ. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 23:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turaga Na Rasau equivalent to Queen of the United Kingdom?

Was this comment made at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keni Naulumatua made in jest?

its so far removed from reality that this is the only way i can make sense of it.

To demonstrate what i'm talking about i'd imagine a survey in the UK asking questions like "Are you aware of the title of Queen of the United Kingdom?" and "Do you know the name of our current Queen?" would get positive responses somewhere above 90%.

A similar survey done in Fiji for "Turaga na Rasau" would probably get significantly lower figures (I'm guessing less the 10%). I myself have lived in Fiji all my life and have never heard of this title. Imagine a person like myself living in the UK for three decades or so and never having heard of Queen Elizabeth II!

I maintain what i said earlier, this is a minor village title at best. --Xorkl000 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the analogy is indeed roughly accurate, although I should have been more precise to stipulate Fijian inhabitants of Vanuabalavu. CyberAnth 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then i still need to disagree, QE2 is a sovereign, ie she is not subject to anyone in the Feudal heirarchy. For the last two centuries Vanuabalavu has been a vassal of (at various points) Somosomo, Tubou, Ma'afu and his Tongans. Depending on how you think of it you might be able to add the United Kingdom and the Republic of Fiji to that list. --Xorkl000 01:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sovereign? Much better thought of as a Figurehead (metaphor). CyberAnth 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well she is that too, that would be her defacto status, however dejure and thinking from a feudal perspective she is a sovereign in the sense that she is subject to no-one. The various title holders in Vanuabalavu do not have this status. --Xorkl000 09:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, in trying in some way to convey a Vanuabalavu perspective to Westerners with generally little anthropological clue, I take it you would agree that the rough analogy with the Queen of England is a useful albeit imperfect (as all analogies are) way to try to do so. CyberAnth 09:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

again i'd disagree, one title is incredibly well known, the other is hardly known at all, even amongst people from Vanuabalavu --Xorkl000 11:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of images on Wikipedia

I found this at:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Alexei756/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Fair_use_des_images

I also put it here:

User:CyberAnth\Fair use of images on Wikipedia

CyberAnth 07:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this?

Pasted from original edit.

I found THIS on the French Wikipedia, in English, but have not found it on the English version. CyberAnth 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange question. That's an essay fr:User:Alexei756 put together more than three years ago. You won't find anything like it on en:; this project's fair use guidelines were largely composed of armchair lawyering on wikien-l at that point. Some of that thinking is distilled in Alexei's essay. There was a question of whether there was an inclusion of unfree material in an article violated the copyright of previous authors to that article (read the actual GFDL to understand why). Alexei's essay seems to be a response to both that concern, and an argument against those who didn't want to include any unfree material at all. That essay eventually turned into the beginning of fr:'s fair use guidelines, which were rather recently discarded in favour of removing everything not a coat of arms, logo, money, stamp, or derivative architectural work (this is a problem in French law). I hope this historical perspective is what you were looking for. Jkelly 08:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange sentence with which to begin a reply to an honest on-topic question. Thanks for the perspective. CyberAnth 08:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fann Wong

Hi, just dropping a note to say that I appreciate your honest feedback on the article Fann Wong! Cheers. Voda voda 13:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Hicks categories

Hi, just to let you know, I marked the categories of the Bonny Hicks page you've created in your user-space out as <nowiki> as this page was cropping up in the various categories alongside the original. Cheers, Anilocra 14:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gosh, sorry about that. I just did not think about that that might happen. Thanks for fixing that! CyberAnth 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages

Hi,

Thanks for your comments re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Endangered languages. Hope to see you around. --Ling.Nut 00:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

Is your sandbox article destined for Religious views on birth control? — Twas Now 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian views on contraception. :-) CyberAnth 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious views on Masturbation

Thank you, your efforts to rewrite the religious views on masturbation article better are appreciated. I note that ther are other related sections in articles that could benefit from this once it is complete. Fornication#Religions, Religion_and_sexuality, Homosexuality and religion and Sexual ethics might benefit. I think perhaps we may have different perspectives on these issues, however, proper sourcing and citing of references in these articles, rather than opinion and OR is what we both seek. Certainly the effort to rewrite, rather than wholesale blanking of the content in these articles would be beneficial. Atom 13:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Plutoed ==

Plutoed

DOM

Have you lost interest in this subject? Harvardy 06:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just did not expect to right now have to be saving Mary Pride from deletion. I appreciate your understanding, a bit more patience, and the support you showed on its AfD page. CyberAnth 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Looks like you've had some battles since you first took an interest in DOM. Good luck. Do you see any problem with my bringing up issues on the dom talk page that you can look into later? Or should I just chill longer and see what happens? Harvardy 06:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd chill. And trust. CyberAnth 06:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that picture you showed of the fox and the lamb, with your hand out, trust me, neither sure to trust you. What is the story behind that picture? Harvardy 06:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found it at a website and thought it just perfectly described a very strong bent in my personality to enter situations of conflict and be a fair and impartial arbitrator. Just be forewarned that neither party will get their full plate. That fact has to be accepted by both parties as an exceedingly better alternative to continual warring. CyberAnth 06:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War is not the answer. I'm back to chilling. Now that there was no consensus on Mary Pride deletion, good luck on your next project. Harvardy 17:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom has permanently banned you and all your sockpuppets Johnski. You have no permission to edit anything on Wikipedia. Ever. End of story. What part of this do you not understand? --Gene_poole 05:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't been "permanently banned" so please stop trolling. I'm back to chilling. Harvardy 22:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have been permanently banned. Lying about it won't change anything. --Gene_poole 11:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your outsiders view on raspor

Hi CyberAnth, I have asked you to provide the evidence you used to reach your conclusions here and here. Thank you! Mr Christopher 15:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also found your comments at AN/I to be puzzling. What contribs of Raspor's are you talking about? I have yet to see any evidence that s/he knows much about either ID or science - how did you come to the conclusion that Raspor was obviously appears pretty knowledgeable about ID? I have done my best to read what s/he has to say, and I have seen nothing that would lead to that conclusion at all. I have been editing ID-related articles for a long time, and I have had many discussions with editors about the content of the articles. I have encountered people with a wide range of knowledge about ID - Raspor seems to be one of the least knowledgeable about ID (at least among people who have actively discussed the topic). Guettarda 16:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing knots

A tag has been placed on Fishing knots, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. If you plan to add more material to the article, I advise you to do so immediately. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources which verify their content. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 07:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to add: is there a reason why you have thirty or so lines on the top of your talk page? It really hurts my eyes, and personally I think it's kind of rude and pointless. I don't mean to attack or anything, but would be too much of a problem to prune the code down so that things are readable? —Keakealani·?·!·@ 07:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. The article will boom over the next few days. CyberAnth 07:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah, bit of any over-reaction. Admittedly, the first posting of the article wasn't even enough for a stub, so I tagged it and left a tempate message. Apologies for the hasty response. That being said, I'd suggest drafting out at least a stub before starting so that it doesn't get deleted. —Keakealani·?·!·@ 07:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fishing knots

I have created a Category for Fishing knots and placed the articles listed in your "Fishing knots" article in it. Dddstone 15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Guitarists

I readded you to the Participants page, you were deleted by another user. If it's not ok, please delete yourself from it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guitarists/Members Grinder0-0 19:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notify uploader to allow for discussion

Image:Conflict (Onan) by South African artist Anton Brink.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Conflict (Onan) by South African artist Anton Brink.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Atom 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quiverfull Yates deletion

As a scholar, I'm sure that you recognize the difference between a third-party inference of association (based on a loose, and frankly generalizable category) and actual subscription/endorsement of a movement. The Yates family may have views that are somewhat compatible with the Quiverfull movement. However, a member of the family reporting the husband as having said "we want as many children as God will give" hardly counts as a ringing personal endorsement; especially when it is juxtaposed with the other prominent families who are active endorsers of the quiverfull lifestyle. Instead, it comes off as a churlish attempt at poisoning the well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grkndeacon (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

This question goes to how to define a Quiverfull adherent.

I think we should avoid defining a QF adherent in a highly strict sense, i.e., they must proudly wear around the label and subscribe to the QF Digest.

The more sane way to define it is that one must maintain its core beliefs whether they adopt the label or not. Within a backdrop of Christian fundamentalism, the core QF doctrinal distinctive is providential conception, the view that God "opens and closes the womb" of a woman on a case-by-case basis, with that extended to mean that attempts to regulate fertility are a subjugation of God's providential right. We cannot even say that the view that children are blessings is a unique QF doctrine, since Christians who use a wide range of birth control also consider children blessings.

Charles D. Provan to my knowledge has never said, "I belong to the Quiverfull movement", yet his beliefs are clearly Quiverfull and people can rightly associate him as such. Mary Pride has never adopted the label to my knowledge, although her ideas are pointed to by QF adherents and I happen to know from her that she does not reject being mentioned as one of the ideological founders of the movement. In this vein, people have seen Yates in the QF category because she meets core criteria: an adherence to providential conception amidst a backdrop of Christian fundamentalism.

While it is possible to introduce information into the article splitting hairs between those who are QF in doctrine and those who explicitly adopt the label, that would introduce a complexity into the article that would needlessly confuse readers. The QF Digest routinely has introductory entires from new subscribers indicating something along the lines of, "We never even knew we were Quiverfull nor had we even heard of it until [we found website, saw news story, etc.]! Nice to be here!"

Movements never achieve their name at the outset. The name always comes later, e.g., Christians were first called "Christians" in Antioch. It is a very poor editorial choice to mark the beginning of a movement at the point of that movement's naming, and it is a very poor editorial choice to define QF adherents by a strict definition of those who specifically adopt the label.

CyberAnth 17:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on Talk:Ass to mouth

Hi, I have removed your comment on this talk page. The thread that it appeared on was started by someone who has been asked by the Community not to make unconstructive criticism. The selfsame thread has been removed multiple times. To leave your comment would have been to have a floating comment not relating to anything. I appreciate that you agree with that person's point of view but the validity of the article has been discussed already. Malla nox 01:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been asked by the "Community" (as you've put it), but just by few other Wikipedians. That's difference. 193.219.28.146 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

193.219.28.146, you are correct that WP will never be anything close to a Britannica without policies in-kind. There is a very strong presence on WP of what some have called "The Pervert Cabal". I'd suggest you do what many others have done and have a look here where a project recognizes this and much more. CyberAnth 01:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can only find one reference to the pervert cabal on Citizendium, Are you able to clarify who the Pervert Cabal are? Thanks. Malla nox 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read some WP admin (sysop?) and a user on CZ use the term a couple times, which I 'spose is why the term has been floating around in my head recently. I think I originally heard it from some page Google turned up a year or so back, and on a page or two from www.wikitruth.info, and the like. Pretty interesting that multiple people would use the term, don't you think? CyberAnth 02:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Childfree

Given that you have access to the Social Science elements of Ebsco I'd be grateful if you could take a look at Childfree, which lacks much in the way of reasonable referencing.ALR 08:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for asking this. I have the research capabilities of a major University. EBSCO is one of those. Please feel free to keep that in mind and ask me to research any debatable topic in the future. I am very happy to do it.

Childfree is an area within my expertise. I can say it is a quite large movement that crosses many ideological, religious, and secular boundaries. The movement is primarily comprised of persons who have ideological concerns over earth's overpopulation and depletion of its resources. It also has representation by those who hold to evolutionary ecological worldviews, e.g., those that carry genetic defects and do not wish to pass them into the human gene pool. Equally, childfree has adherents who, for personal reasons, feel they'd make poor parents, e.g., "I was abused terribly when I was a child". I was first introduced to childfree a decade ago by a childfree English prof who had a terrible time at a young age finding a physician even willing to tie her tubes before she had at least one child (see article about this problem below).

An EBESCO search....HOLD....

Here are selections from results:

Voluntarily Childfree Women: Experiences and Counseling Considerations. By: Mollen, Debra. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, Jul2006, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p269-282, 14p; (AN 21639016)

Why won't any doctor let me get my tubes tied? By: Crispin, Jessa. Jane, May2006, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p150-150, 2p, 1c; (AN 20775945)

Childfree by choice. By: Stobert, Susan; Kemeny, Anna. Canadian Social Trends, Summer2003 Issue 69, p7, 4p; (AN 10104919)

Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Childfree Advocates and the Rhetoric of Choice. By: Taylor, Erin N.. Women & Politics, 2003, Vol. 24 Issue 4, p49, 27p; (AN 9864242)

Childfree in Toyland. By: Clausen, Christopher. American Scholar, Winter2002, Vol. 71 Issue 1, p111, 11p; (AN 6390936)

The Chosen Lives of Childfree Men (Book). By: Greenhalgh, Susan. Population & Development Review, Dec99, Vol. 25 Issue 4, p817-818, 2p; (AN 2830198)

- The Chosen Lives of Childfree Men (Book Review). By: Knodel, John. Gender Issues, Winter2001, Vol. 19 Issue 1; (AN 5068516)

Childfree and Sterilised (Book Review). By: Savage, Wendy. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 02/05/2000, Vol. 320 Issue 7231, p387, 1/2p; (AN 2809262)

Child-free with an attitude. By: Fost, Dan. American Demographics, Apr96, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p15, 2p, 1 graph; (AN 9604020009)

Alright, that is enough copy-and-pasting. Believe me, there is much, much more.

CyberAnth 09:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look at Childfree, it is clear the article frankly sucks to the nth degree. In my opinion, however, the article is NOT deserving of an AfD proposal, since an excellent article is clearly possible on the topic. CyberAnth 09:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does need a lot of work, I got rid of a lot a while ago but I'm conscious that most of it is opinion based on my experience of the CF community and being CFBC myself. In the past it demonstrated the worst sort of CF bigotry about children, which was both inappropriate and inaccurate. Most of the easily available sources are inadmissible from a WP reliability perspective, so any journal articles etc would help a lot. I'm not of the opinion that it should be AfDd, but it does need brought up to scratch.ALR 09:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my further review of the article, I think your analysis is accurate. It surprises me not in the slightest least that, for lack of a better descriptive, the more "extremist" CF'ers would show up on WP to "write" the CF article. If I had my way - if I were the WP god, LOL - this quality of article would not even disgrace WP to give the world a reason to distrust the project as a reliable source. It would be worked on in draft space, or something like that. After it reached high quality, it would then be approved by subject experts (or disapproved with comment on how it could be approved), and then it would become an article. Like Citizendium aspires to. Anyway, I will keep this article on my watchlist and perhaps in the future we can pull a bit of a coup on it, time permitting. It'd be great to have someone who is an adherent of the movement yet who is mindfull of what you appear to be, working on it. I am interested in it first academically (I myself am pretty "mainstream" on the whole issue but I think I well understand the more polar positions and am sympathetic to both). AAR, I can definitely envision it looking something like its antonymous article, Quiverfull, where you can see I have been, uh, shall we say, pretty active over the past year. CyberAnth 09:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Erect_female_nipple--profile.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Erect_female_nipple--profile.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]